Wong Souk Yee v AG [2019] SGCA 25 filled. On this basis, the Appellant urges the court to adopt the Appellant’s Interpretation. 75 This argument ignores the fact that Parliament, in debating the amendments to the Constitution and the PEA to put in place the GRC scheme, had specifically considered the risk of minority representation being diminished in this situation, and had decided that this risk was an acceptable trade-off for preventing a Member of a GRC from otherwise being able to hold the rest of the Members of that GRC to ransom (see [53] above). To accept the Appellant’s argument on this point would run contrary to Parliament’s intention by importing into the GRC scheme a risk that Parliament had explicitly intended to avoid, in exchange for removing a risk that Parliament had explicitly expressed its willingness to accept. Such a reversal of the policy choice that Parliament had expressly made strikes at the heart of the concern behind judicial legislation, and would result in our overstepping our constitutional role. It is not for us to debate the best policy to enshrine minority representation in Parliament, much less when Parliament itself has already chosen a particular model for this, with all its attendant risks. We therefore reject this argument. The implied right to representation in Parliament 76 The Appellant’s argument based on voters’ implied right to representation in Parliament relies on the decision in Vellama at [79], where we said that “the form of government of the Republic of Singapore as reflected in the Constitution is the Westminster model of government … [t]he voters of a constituency are entitled to have a Member representing and speaking for them in Parliament”; as well as the decision in Yong Vui Kong v Public Prosecutor [2015] 2 SLR 1129 (“Yong Vui Kong”), where, at [69]–[70], we noted the contention that the right to vote might be part of the “basic structure” of the 32